DR. AMBEDKAR AND THE HINDU CODE BILL 637
the idea of breaking up joint families but to see that they get out of income-tax regulations. Therefore, it is not correct to say that joint
family life is breaking up either among the Vaishyas or among the Natukottai Chettiars or among the Marwaris. Now, sitting in this Legislative Assembly or Parliament, there is no use our thinking that we are in possession of all the facts regarding every nook and corner
of India and legislating on that basis. The only thing we have to consider is, is it so out of tune with modern conditions and is it going to stand in the way of further progress ? You have also to note certain changes which have already been made in the joint family law. The
rigours of joint family law have been considerably relaxed in recent years. It is now settled law that any member of a joint family may by a unilateral declaration sever himself from the rest of the family without reference to any court of law. The manifestation of will or
intention on the part of any member of the joint family is enough for severance, even so many still continue as members of a joint family because still they like the institution of the joint family. Any member
of a joint family may alienate his share of the family property. In the case of father and son, the entire property is liable for the debts of the father. The son is responsible for the debt of the father. He cannot escape his responsibility by saying that the debts were incurred by the
father for immoral purposes. I am certain that that sort of litigation is fast dying down. There is no question of escape now by saying that the debt was incurred by the father for immoral purposes. Then again, the law as to self-acquisition has been considerably simplified. Decisions
of the Privy Council have made it quite clear that if a person acquires property, he can keep it for himself. Therefore, the plea that I would make to my friend, the Hon. Law Minister is that this institution still obtains. It may break up in the course of the next fifteen, thirty or
fifty years. With the change in the law of marriage and other things, it may break up. But my whole point is, without reference to the will of the people, without reference to their consent, without taking into
account the general consciousness of the people, why undertake this legislation ? You may think that I am a kind of ancient fellow who does not understand these things. I do want that this country should move with the times, but my plea is you should first ascertain the will
of the people. It may be argued. “All right, so far as agricultural property is concerned, we will not touch it, but we will make a change in regard to non-agricultural property”. It is not easy to make a distinction in matters of this kind between one kind of property and